9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax Appeal challenging the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 24-3-2010 [2010 (255) E.L.T. 295 (Tri. - Ahmd.], raising following questions for our consideration : "A. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is justified in the eye of law in granting the option to the assessee to deposit the entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been confirmed and upheld by the order in Appeal dated 16/17-11-2005, and later on also by the impugned order dated 24-3-2010? C. Whether there is any bounden duty under the Central Excise Law cast upon the Adjudicating Authority, to explain and/or to state with/without the note, the provisions of 1st & 2nd Proviso to Section 11AC of the said Act, or to offer any specific opti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of the order of the Tribunal. 3. In the past, this Court had come across similar orders of the Tribunal wherein this Court had not entertained Tax Appeals of the Revenue. In one such matter, being Tax Appeal No. 29 of 2010 decided on 17-2-2010 [2013 (294) E.L.T. 208 (Guj.)], following observations were made. "9. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Ravani and als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 31 (Del.), Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. J. R. Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 2009 (238) E.L.T. 209 (P & H), has taken the view that the order passed by the Tribunal retaining the penalty of 25% of the duty amount seems to be quite justified. For the reasons recorded in the said two judgments, we do not feel it necessary to take any different view in this Appeal." 4. In the result, T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
